- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Trial: Judge Merchan won't allow certain Defense testimony
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:20 am to MFn GIMP
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:20 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
There’s no question this would result in the battle of the experts which would only serve to confuse and not assist the jury,”
I mean, is this his first trial?
5
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:20 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
The only problem is that trump has given the whole world a peek behind the curtain and into the inner workings of the machine that is being manipulated to railroad him.
They’re aiming for a verdict that is now guaranteed to be nothing more than hollow words due to the depths of their desperation and the nature of their own depravity.
At this point, I have about as much regard for a guilty verdict for trump from our corrupted judicial system as I do for the “go to jail” space in a monopoly board.
They’re aiming for a verdict that is now guaranteed to be nothing more than hollow words due to the depths of their desperation and the nature of their own depravity.
At this point, I have about as much regard for a guilty verdict for trump from our corrupted judicial system as I do for the “go to jail” space in a monopoly board.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I mean, is this his first trial?
If the statement came from a reporter, possibly.
If it came from Merchan? Less so.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
Is that the whole purpose of competing experts?
“The defense cannot put on a case because it might confuse the jury or cause them to doubt the prosecution”
“The defense cannot put on a case because it might confuse the jury or cause them to doubt the prosecution”
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I mean, is this his first trial?
Exactly. Like you said, I'm sure there is more to it, but that quote is insane. I'm not a lawyer but I've watched enough trials to know this is why each side has expert witnesses. To explain why something is/isn't a crime.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:22 am to ezride25
quote:
The only problem is that trump has given the whole world a peek behind the curtain and into the inner workings of the machine that is being manipulated to railroad him.
FYI, this should give everyone a peek behind the curtain at our Police State and the over-prosecution of our population across the board.
Defendants almost always get railroaded.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:26 am to Indefatigable
quote:
If you want to have the statement stricken and sanctions from the court while being reported to the bar, sure.
Before the closing argument Trump should fire his defense team (to protect them) and he present the closing argument to the jury in defense of himself and excoriate the entire proceeding.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:27 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Exactly. Like you said, I'm sure there is more to it, but that quote is insane. I'm not a lawyer but I've watched enough trials to know this is why each side has expert witnesses. To explain why something is/isn't a crime.
Well fundamentally, he has it backwards, especially with how esoteric/novel the theory of this prosecution is.
The burden is on the state. The fact that they're bringing a complicated theory to a jury doesn't mean that the defense explaining this is the convoluted behavior.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:28 am to GumboPot
This whole thing is absurd on so many levels.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:31 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
"result in a battle of experts and confuse the jury."
So expert testimony isn't allowed because Jurors are too stupid to understand?
This judge has guaranteed being overturned on appeal, but thats not the goal. Its to occupy Trump and take hiim away from campaigning.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:32 am to MFn GIMP
just Can't call a witness to help exonerate you?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:35 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Merchan, just now, has decided that Trump's team can't use Brad Smith, an expert in campaign finance law, as a witness because it would "result in a battle of experts and confuse the jury."
Translation: It might cause the jury to think that Trump isn't guilty, and well, we can't have that now, can we?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:36 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
He also isn't allowing in an email that was sent to Cohen to impeach his testimony
It literally says in the evidence rules in all 50 states and in the federal rules that an out of court statement used to impeach is not hearsay.
Plus “battle of the experts”? WTAF? There’s always a battle of the experts. He’s just saving Bragg bc they didn’t present an expert in election law.
Hell - Bragg didn’t even identify a crime.
PS - the judge instructs the jury on the law, so usually legal experts are excluded. I don’t see this as totally off base as the freaking hearsay rulings this dude has made.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:39 am to HeadSlash
The way this is working out so far-
Stormy shits the bed, says nothing of note other than prejudicial testimony allowed by the judge, can’t impune Trump for any payment.
Cohen takes the stand and lies but Merchan apparently won’t allow evidence from others like Cohen’s attorney to impeach his credibility
The defense wants to have its own expert explain why there was no campaign violation and the judge says “no” because it would be confusing to have experts debate where there is an actual fricking crime.
There are so many aspects here that would be grounds for appeal that there should honestly be a mistrial now. Which he won’t grant.
Stormy shits the bed, says nothing of note other than prejudicial testimony allowed by the judge, can’t impune Trump for any payment.
Cohen takes the stand and lies but Merchan apparently won’t allow evidence from others like Cohen’s attorney to impeach his credibility
The defense wants to have its own expert explain why there was no campaign violation and the judge says “no” because it would be confusing to have experts debate where there is an actual fricking crime.
There are so many aspects here that would be grounds for appeal that there should honestly be a mistrial now. Which he won’t grant.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:41 am to teke184
quote:
There are so many aspects here that would be grounds for appeal that there should honestly be a mistrial now. Which he won’t grant.
There should be a panel of over watchers who are able to throw a case out mid-trial if the shenanigans are too absurd.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah, I assume there is more to it than what's in OP (for obvious reasons), but that's a bad ruling almost universally.
The judge ruled that it doesn't matter if he actually violated campaign finance law...just that he had the intent to commit another crime. So, in his view, the expert does not add anything to the equation.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:45 am to Ex-Popcorn
How does he establish intent? Cohen’s testimony which he won’t allow Cohen’s own attorney to impeach?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:48 am to teke184
quote:
The way this is working out so far-
Stormy shits the bed, says nothing of note other than prejudicial testimony allowed by the judge, can’t impune Trump for any payment.
Cohen takes the stand and lies but Merchan apparently won’t allow evidence from others like Cohen’s attorney to impeach his credibility
Just so y'all know, the testimony at this trial has been spun completely differently by different outlets, so I wouldn't assume it was as bad as the echo chamber reported.
Pod Saves America was legit cheering on both sets of testimony
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:49 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
The judge ruled that it doesn't matter if he actually violated campaign finance law...just that he had the intent to commit another crime. So, in his view, the expert does not add anything to the equation.
Explaining how the behavior (intentional or not) doesn't violate campaign finance law would put this to bed.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:50 am to teke184
quote:
Cohen’s testimony which he won’t allow Cohen’s own attorney to impeach?
On a side note, Wednesday is correct that this is a much more clear bad ruling. Impeachment is the wild west in trials. Hearsay is not excluded if used to impeach pretty much universally. It's not even hearsay, technically.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News